Demand and acceptance of bribe are essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted amount in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance cannot be taken as sufficient to convict a public servant.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State, being represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“A.C.B.” for short), Guntur, challenging the judgment, dated 24.07.2006 in C.C.No.16 of 2001, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (“Special Judge” for short), where under the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer (“A.O” for short) therein not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short).

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The State represented by A.C.B., Guntur, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.9/ACB-VJA/2000 of Guntur District under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, alleging in substance as follows :

(i) The A.O. worked as Station Fire Officer, Mangalagiri of Guntur District from 07.07.1997 to 07.08.2000, as such, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C. Act.

(ii) On 21.05.2000 when L.W.1-B. Ramesh Reddy was at Hyderabad, he received information about the fire accident that occurred in his godown. Immediately, he proceeded to Namburu on 22.05.2000 evening. He already insured the stocks of 35,000 kgs., of NLS Bits variety of tobacco in his godown for Rs.6.00 lakhs with National Insurance Company. Hence, he reported the matter to Pedakakani Police Station.

(iii) About 10 days prior to giving the report to ACB, L.W.1 proceeded to the Fire Station, Mangalagiri and requested the A.O. to issue fire certificate to get his claim processed, because the fire services staff at Mangalagiri extinguished the fire on 21.05.2000. The A.O. demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- to issue the fire certificate. L.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the demanded bribe and went back to his residence. Again on 03.07.2000 he went to the fire office, Mangalagiri and requested him to issue fire certificate. The A.O. informed him that he would not issue fire certificate unless he pay the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. L.W.1 reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe amount to the A.O. within two days and proceeded to the office of L.W.7-District Inspector, ACB, Guntur and gave a written report. After making necessary enquiry about the A.O. and L.W.1, L.W.8-D.S.P., ACB, Vijayawada Range, registered the report as a case in Crime No.9/ACB-VJA/2000 on 04.07.2000 at 1-00 p.m., under Sections 7 of P.C. Act and took up investigation.

(iv) On 04.07.2000 evening at 4-50 p.m., the A.O. was trapped when he further demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- as a gratification other than legal remuneration from L.W.1 for doing official favour. The trap amount was recovered at the instance of the A.O. The serial numbers of the tainted currency notes were even tallied with the serial numbers that were mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings. When both hand fingers of the A.O. were subjected to chemical test, it yielded positive result. L.W.7 seized the tainted amount, fire certificate and certain other relevant documents during post-trap proceedings drafted from 5-45 p.m. to 8-15 p.m. on 04.07.2000 at the office of the A.O.

(v) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the competent authority to remove the A.O., accorded sanction for prosecution of the A.O. for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) vide G.O.Ms.No.137 Home (SC-B) Department, dated 16.06.2001. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Special Judge, took the cognizance under the above provisions of law and after appearance of the A.O and after complying Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act against the A.O and explained the same to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were exa